Ok, I didnt really get involved in the post I saw on here not too long ago about QoS because I didnt have it installed. Well, now I see it is appearing within my network settings and I am wondering what it is really about. Is it helpful? Is it slowing me down? Is it what is making my cable connection so unstable lately or is it just Comcast's takover?
it's just comcasts switch, QoS doesn't slow you down or harm anything unless you are on a LAN or are running QoS apps, which you most likely are not, and even then if you are running a QOS app it would just guarantee that app a default 20% bandwidth and if you are running a QoS you'd want it to have that bandwidth anyway
It's a heated debate whether it affects anything when not using QoS software or switches, but either way, you can remove it or just unbind (uncheck) it and that removes any question. Either way, it doesn't improve your speed as it sits.
Yeah, no need for it really, unless its the gateway computer on a heavely used connection (maybe)
Qos doesn't do anything either way for most users, but if you insist, the easiest way to dissable it is through services...I dissabled it just so it doesn't run on startup, but this will not speed your internet
Originally posted by dealer
Qos doesn't do anything either way for most users, but if you insist, the easiest way to dissable it is through services...I dissabled it just so it doesn't run on startup, but this will not speed your internet

Actually, the easiest way is to uninstall it from your networking settings, or just uncheck it in the protocol listing for your connection. The former will stop it altogether, the latter just not run it on the specific connection.
thats basically why i asked. I thought i read that it reserved bandwidth. So, if it reserves some, doesnt it take away from the bandwidth from the cable modem or is that something seperate?
from what I understand, the bandwith is only RESERVED...what this means, is you'll be using 100% of the bandwith UNTILL a high priority download occurs, THEN the reserved bandwith is claimed, THAT'S why most users will notice NO differance...there are very few downloads that will use the qos protocall, my guess is an update would be one of them...still, I'd set it to manual, or dissabeled just to keep as little running as you need
Yip, Update, Error Reporting and Network Gateway, like i said in previous post.
But what I'm saying is that NO BANDWITH IS USED, AND THE USER IS USING 100% OF THE BANDWITH untill a high priority download occurs...removing qos WILL NOT GIVE ANYONE MORE BANDWITH, unless a qos download occurs...which happens hardly
Originally posted by UniSol
And.... QoS reservers 20% bandwidth, so get it disabled :)

Correcting Some Incorrect Claims About Windows XP QoS Support

There have been claims in various published technical articles and newsgroup postings that Windows XP always reserves 20 percent of the available bandwidth for QoS. These claims are incorrect. The information in the "Clarification about QoS in End Computers That Are Running Windows XP" section of this article correctly describes the behavior of Windows XP systems.

Clarification about QoS in End Computers That Are Running Windows XP

As in Windows 2000, programs can leverage QoS through the QoS application programming interfaces (APIs) in Windows XP. One hundred percent of the network bandwidth is available to be shared by all programs unless a program specifically requests priority bandwidth. This "reserved" bandwidth is still available to other programs unless the requesting program is sending data. By default, programs can reserve up to an aggregate bandwidth of 20 percent of the underlying link speed on each interface on an end computer. If the program that reserved the bandwidth is not sending enough data to utilize it completely, the unused portion of the reserved bandwidth is available for other data flows on the same host.

For more information about the QoS packet scheduler, refer to Windows XP Help. Additional information about Windows 2000 QoS is available in the Windows 2000 technical library.
Originally posted by UniSol
I guess I succeeded in winding you up then :p

/me chuckles

No you did not succedd in winding me up. You are just giving false information. I feel that people should know the truth.

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Latest member